This looks homegrown. The source code [1] is fairly readable.
New dots seem to enter the world in the position of the last dot placed but below them. Position and size seem to follow a simple linear movement between frames.
I wonder though, why is this done with canvas instead of SVG. Just to cut down on the number of DOM elements?
That appears to work like a denial of service attack on my brain - I was sitting here quite hypnotized until a colleague asked me what on earth I was doing.
omg I know! I was ready to leave multiple times but something prevented me from moving my mouse and I starred at it for five minutes. It is number porn.
Before you say that it should be just a line, let me say that it doesn't break the rules that say you can "draw" a circle with 100 or 12 or 7 dots. The dots don't form a circle but rather fall on the line of a circle your mind draws. Since there is nothing truly between the dots, the "true" shape could jut out and form a corner or any other shape, just like it could be a line between the two dots. The circle isn't really there in any circle of n points, so n=2 (and n=1 for that matter) work just fine.
The original post used the term "formed," and I used "make," both with the intent of using only dots to create a circle. I would say you have "included" two dots in your circle, with this new line being the main element. With all due respect.
not quite - you can't make a circle with diameter smaller than the distance between the two dots. and for any given radius, at most two circles (two centre positions) are possible.
Here is another fascinating visualization that I'm sure will ring a bell for some of you. For those that haven't seen this type of explanation, it's really neat. Eduardo's explanation both easy-to-read--hey, he's a writer--and detailed.
Wow, what a terrible article. The disingenuity is astounding.
>Pornography is fake.
True, but that's not why the analogy is used. Pornography is a visual media that conveys some of the pleasure of an act without the viewer actually going through the effort of doing it.
>Pornography's aim is to sexually excite the viewer. Are geeks sexually excited by the eBay data?…
>pleasure comes from many things that are non-sexual such as eating…
>So let's swap 'geek porn' for a 'geek feast'.
But why isn't "feast" defined symmetrically? A feast's aim is to gastronomically excite the user. Are geeks gastronomically excited by the eBay data?
The whole rant is semantic nonsense, defining words in a way that begs the question. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good rant. I just like my rants to make sense.
The real reason not to use the Porn Analogy is stuffed in the last paragraph: "Many people are uncomfortable with pornography and don't want pornography analogies in professional work."
It wasn't my intention when writing it to be disingenuous, but I do think there's validity in his/her criticism of the article. Not my finest blog post.
Feature request: single step. The only way I can slow it down enough to explain it to my kids is to stop it, and it stops in random (usually mangled) states. I wish I could single step it.
I teach math, and I am definitely showing this to my class today! I am pretty sure this will help some students make sense of prime numbers for the first time in their lives.
75 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadNew dots seem to enter the world in the position of the last dot placed but below them. Position and size seem to follow a simple linear movement between frames.
I wonder though, why is this done with canvas instead of SVG. Just to cut down on the number of DOM elements?
[1] http://www.datapointed.net/media/2012/10/factor_min.js
"...no..." :(
Before you say that it should be just a line, let me say that it doesn't break the rules that say you can "draw" a circle with 100 or 12 or 7 dots. The dots don't form a circle but rather fall on the line of a circle your mind draws. Since there is nothing truly between the dots, the "true" shape could jut out and form a corner or any other shape, just like it could be a line between the two dots. The circle isn't really there in any circle of n points, so n=2 (and n=1 for that matter) work just fine.
From Wikipedia:
A circle can be defined as the curve traced out by a point that moves so that its distance from a given point is constant.
http://www.sievesofchaos.com/
At least, that's how my brain feels now.
http://www.sandwichlab.net/websaver/
Fun has fashion, just like everything else.
>Pornography is fake.
True, but that's not why the analogy is used. Pornography is a visual media that conveys some of the pleasure of an act without the viewer actually going through the effort of doing it.
>Pornography's aim is to sexually excite the viewer. Are geeks sexually excited by the eBay data?…
>pleasure comes from many things that are non-sexual such as eating…
>So let's swap 'geek porn' for a 'geek feast'.
But why isn't "feast" defined symmetrically? A feast's aim is to gastronomically excite the user. Are geeks gastronomically excited by the eBay data?
The whole rant is semantic nonsense, defining words in a way that begs the question. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good rant. I just like my rants to make sense.
The real reason not to use the Porn Analogy is stuffed in the last paragraph: "Many people are uncomfortable with pornography and don't want pornography analogies in professional work."
Be aware that the person youre replying to is the person who wrote the article.
I do think you're right though, and I'd be interested to hear jgc's response.
http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/math/factorization...
Feature request: audio track speaking the numbers as they appear
UPDATE: 'Popcorn', the electronic pop instrumental, might do too, with the counting synched to the beat
Or perhaps Boards Of Canada's Aquarius, I wonder what the factorization of sixty-ten looks like :)
I think it's reprogramming my brain.